"We as a community need to be engaged in bridging our similarities, not engaged in fuelling divide. Turning the homeless into political tools for an agenda dehumanises them as people," pointed out The Liberty Disciple.

"This is absolutely disgusting. It is decentralising empathy in favour of a more hollow interaction," agreed X.

HeywoodFloyd was undeterred by the negative arguments surrounding the project: "Realistic thought-provoking, easily capable of being implemented either conceptually or literally. Excellent work."

Nicholas took a more balanced approach: "We can all agree that there are fierce complexities regarding homelessness and how to eradicate it. That being said, I commend this designer for investigating and conceiving a design that tries to help with the daily struggles homeless people face."

Kihara also responded to commenters himself: "Street debating is not intended to fuel divides, but to provide a space for people with differences to get together and discuss their differences."

John Anderson was enthusiastic about the idea: "Fantastic! Reduce air pollution, noise pollution and make people exercise more."

"It is most pleasant to walk through London, there is much richness to the fabric of the city," added Simone de Gale.

"This sounds really great but what is the catch? I mean we all know Patrik Schumacher's recent talk about 'solving' the housing crisis in London by privatising everything," wrote a suspicious Zea Newland.

Jim Dory also felt there might be an ulterior motive: "I guess, based on Patrick's latest posts, the public should pay an entrance fee to use the pedestrian routes."

"Bold moves are needed to address increasingly problematic issues, I hope the mayor gets behind this proposal and helps bring it to fruition," fired back John McCart.